- Messages
- 46,202
- Location
- De donde me da la gana.
Texas=Howdy Arabia
- Thread starter Lily
- Start date
- Messages
- 37,518
- Location
- Hold on to your wallet.
I'd forgotten I was even on Insta, maybe it just comes with FB.
The Atomic Punk
Factory Bastard
- Messages
- 669
- Location
- Earth
Except if her doctors had just provided the care she needed, and she did not put herself out to be a martyr for the abortion crusade she could have easily had it don.
She offered herself up for a case that did not pertain to her.
Should have been done-and-done…..who persuaded her to become a judicial specticle?
Ms. cox got caught up in this….she was a pawn in the abortion rights movement.
Why…..read below……let me know if you need this explained to uo
Initially, a judge in Austin agreed and enjoined the law as it applied to complicated pregnancies. The state appealed that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing in part that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue because they were not actively seeking abortions in Texas.
But Ms. Cox thrusted herself into the spectacle …….rather than have her doctors provide the care sought.
Cox saw the news stories about this hearing and reached out to the Center for Reproductive Rights. She volunteered to be the plaintiff they needed, in the state’s own words, to challenge these laws.
From the link
The Texas Supreme Court recognized that only a doctor, not a judge or trial court, could decide whether a pregnant woman had a life-threatening physical condition making an abortion necessary to save her life or to save her from “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” In this case, the doctor did not attest that Trisomy 18 in the unborn child created a life-threatening condition or one that created a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. As such, no court could grant the pre-authorization that Cox was seeking. The court also noted a ” woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion
She offered herself up for a case that did not pertain to her.
Should have been done-and-done…..who persuaded her to become a judicial specticle?
Ms. cox got caught up in this….she was a pawn in the abortion rights movement.
Why…..read below……let me know if you need this explained to uo
Initially, a judge in Austin agreed and enjoined the law as it applied to complicated pregnancies. The state appealed that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, arguing in part that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue because they were not actively seeking abortions in Texas.
But Ms. Cox thrusted herself into the spectacle …….rather than have her doctors provide the care sought.
Cox saw the news stories about this hearing and reached out to the Center for Reproductive Rights. She volunteered to be the plaintiff they needed, in the state’s own words, to challenge these laws.
From the link
The Texas Supreme Court recognized that only a doctor, not a judge or trial court, could decide whether a pregnant woman had a life-threatening physical condition making an abortion necessary to save her life or to save her from “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” In this case, the doctor did not attest that Trisomy 18 in the unborn child created a life-threatening condition or one that created a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. As such, no court could grant the pre-authorization that Cox was seeking. The court also noted a ” woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion
OP
OP
- Messages
- 46,202
- Location
- De donde me da la gana.
She wasn't allowed to get the abortion she needed. End of story.
- Messages
- 37,518
- Location
- Hold on to your wallet.
Carded and denied, keep your bootlicking visions to yourself.
The Atomic Punk
Factory Bastard
- Messages
- 669
- Location
- Earth
Do you understand why that is?
OP
OP
- Messages
- 46,202
- Location
- De donde me da la gana.
Yes, they are fundamentalists that want to control women.
- Messages
- 37,518
- Location
- Hold on to your wallet.
Why do you even question the need for a woman to rid her body of a dead or dying "fetus"? This is not even in the same ballpark as the conventional idea of an abortion of convenience.
"The woman died so the miscarried fetus could be dead for full term" Seriously?
Last edited: